On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 at 08:13, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is cool work; I am going to bikeshed on the name for a minute. I > don't think Result Cache is terrible, but I have two observations:
Thanks > 1. It might invite confusion with a feature of some other database > systems where they cache the results of entire queries and try to > reuse the entire result set. Yeah. I think "Cache" is good to keep, but I'm pretty much in favour of swapping "Result" for something else. It's a bit too close to the "Result" node in name, but too distant for everything else. > 2. The functionality reminds me a bit of a Materialize node, except > that instead of overflowing to disk, we throw away cache entries, and > instead of caching just one result, we potentially cache many. > > I can't really think of a way to work Materialize into the node name > and I'm not sure it would be the right idea anyway. But I wonder if > maybe a name like "Parameterized Cache" would be better? Yeah, I think that name is better. The only downside as far as I can see is the length of it. I'll hold off a bit before doing any renaming though to see what other people think. I just feel bikeshedding on the name is something that's going to take up quite a bit of time and effort with this. I plan to rename it at most once. Thanks for the comments David
